Greene v. Cincinnati - Hamilton County, Ohio

More documents

Recommendations

Info

OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALSin the manner in which it demonstrates compliance with the rule. Chan v. TASR, 1st Dist. No.C-070275, 2008-Ohio-1439, 10.{11} In the case at bar, the trial court complied with Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d). In itsjudgment entry, the court stated, “[a]fter hearing oral arguments on August 19, 2009, reviewingthe written memorandum presented by the parties, and considering the evidence and transcriptof proceedings before Arbitrator Joseph A. Alutto of the American Arbitration Association, theCourt finds that Plaintiff-Appellant’s objections are not well taken.”Thus, contrary toGreene’s assertion that the trial court had issued a “bare-bones” entry, the judgment explicitlyindicated that the court had relied on the record in finding the objections to be without merit.The court therefore demonstrated that it had fulfilled its judicial function in reviewing therelevant material before finding the objections to be without merit. Accordingly, we overrulethe first assignment of error.The Finding of “Just Cause” to Terminate{12} In his second and final assignment of error, Greene contends that the trialcourt erred in overruling his objections. He maintains that the arbitrator exceeded his authorityin determining that he had been discharged with just cause.{13} Because the resolution of disputes through arbitration is favored, judicialreview is limited. Goodyear Rubber Co. v. Local Union No. 200, 42 Ohio St.2d 516, 520, 330N.E.2d 703 (1975). Thus, a court cannot vacate the decision of an arbitrator except under thenarrow circumstances set forth in R.C. 2711.10. Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. Anarbitrator exceeds his authority under a collective-bargaining agreement only if the award doesnot “draw its essence” from the agreement. Id. at 519-520, citing United Steelworkers ofAmerica v. Ent. Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960).{14} Under the “essence” test, the arbitrator’s award must be confirmed “whenthere is a rational nexus between the agreement and the award, and where the award is notarbitrary, capricious, or unlawful.” Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation and Dev.Disabilities v. Mahoning Cty. TMR Edn. Assn., 22 Ohio St.3d 80, 488 N.E.2d 872 (1986),4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALSparagraph one of the syllabus. On the other hand, an arbitrator’s decision departs from theessence of an agreement where it conflicts with the express terms of the agreement or cannot berationally derived from those terms. Ohio Office of Collective Bargaining v. Civil Serv. Emp.Assn., Local 11, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 59 Ohio St.3d 177, 572 N.E.2d 71 (1991), syllabus;Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 627 v. Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Auth., 190 OhioApp.3d 679, 2010-Ohio-5494, 943 N.E.2d 1075, 8.{15} The collective-bargaining agreement in this case granted the city the right todischarge an officer for “just cause.” Although the agreement did not define the term, courtshave devised a two-part test to determine if an employer has demonstrated “just cause” toterminate an employee. The inquiry is “(1) whether a cause for discipline exists and (2)whether the amount of discipline was proper under the circumstances.” Cincinnati v. QueenCity Lodge No. 69, Fraternal Order of Police, 164 Ohio App.3d 408, 2005-Ohio-6225, 842N.E.2d 588, 20, quoting Bd. of Trustees of Miami Twp. v. Fraternal Order of Police, OhioLabor Council, Inc., 81 Ohio St.3d 269, 271-272, 690 N.E.2d 1262 (1998).{16} In this case, the record supports the arbitrator’s conclusion that Greene hadbeen terminated for just cause. The city documented a litany of instances in which Greene hadbeen resistant, and at times outright defiant, in response to Butler’s reasonable orders. Themisconduct culminated in Greene’s abusive and threatening tirade in response to Butler’squestions about a routine memorandum. As the arbitrator aptly held, such conduct could not betolerated in an organization that relies on discipline and order for its effectiveness.{17} Nonetheless, Greene contends that the award did not draw its essence from thecollective-bargaining agreement because the arbitrator did not require the city to imposeprogressive discipline. He argues that the issuance of the “ESLs” did not put him on notice thathis employment was in jeopardy and did not provide him with an opportunity to disputeButler’s allegations of misconduct.{18} We find no merit in this argument. First, Greene has failed to cite anyprovision of the collective-bargaining agreement that precluded termination for serious5
Page 1 and 2: IN THE COURT OF APPEALSFIRST APPELL
Page 3: OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

Greene v. Cincinnati - Hamilton County, Ohio

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?